Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:47:37.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of alternative feeding strategies on the feeding motivation of broiler breeder pullets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2020

A. Arrazola ,
T. M. Widowski ,
M. T. Guerin ,
E. G. Kiarie  and
S. Torrey Open the ORCID record for S. Torrey [Opens in a new window]
A. Arrazola
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, OntarioN1G 2W1, Canada
T. M. Widowski
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, OntarioN1G 2W1, Canada
M. T. Guerin
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, OntarioN1G 2W1, Canada
E. G. Kiarie
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, OntarioN1G 2W1, Canada
S. Torrey*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, OntarioN1G 2W1, Canada
*
†E-mail: storrey@uoguelph.ca
Get access

Abstract

Due to genetic selection for fast growth and high breast meat yield, commercial strains of broiler chickens and broiler breeders are predisposed to high feed intake; however, feeding broiler breeders ad libitum impairs their health and reproductive performance. Broiler breeders are feed-restricted throughout rearing to maintain health and performance, yet feed restriction results in hunger, feeding frustration and lack of satiety. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of alternative feeding strategies, including feed additives (separately or combined) and a fixed non-daily feeding schedule, on the feeding motivation and welfare of broiler breeders during rearing. At 3 weeks of age, 180 Ross 308 breeder pullets were allocated to 90 cages and fed with one of five isocaloric treatments: (1) daily control diet (control), (2) daily calcium propionate diet (CaP), (3) daily soybean hull diet (SBH), (4) daily alternative diet (alternative: CaP + SBH) and (5) 4/3 control diet (four on-feed days and three non-consecutive off-feed days per week). The CaP diet included calcium propionate at 1.4% from 3 to 6 weeks of age, and at 3.2% from 7 to 12 weeks of age, and the SBH diet contained soybean hulls included at 40%. The alternative diet included both soybean hulls and calcium propionate at the same inclusion rate as the SBH and CaP diets, respectively. Pullets were weighed and scored for feather coverage every week. A feed intake test was conducted at 3, 4, 8, 10 and 11 weeks of age for 10 min during on- and off-feed days. At 12 weeks of age, feather samples were analysed for fault bars. Data were analysed using linear mixed regression models, with cage nested in the models and age as a repeated measure. At 4 weeks of age, pullets fed soybean hull-enriched diets (SBH and alternative diets) and those on the 4/3 schedule had lower feed intake than control pullets (P = 0.02). Feathers from pullets fed the SBH diet had fewer fault bars than those fed the CaP diet (P = 0.04). The results indicated that the inclusion of soybean hulls (alone or combined with calcium propionate) and a 4/3 feeding schedule can reduce feeding motivation of broiler breeders during early rearing.

Keywords

feeding frustrationfeed restrictionfeeding frequencydiluted dietspoultry
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 10 , October 2020 , pp. 2150 - 2158
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Animal Consortium

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrazola, A, Mosco, E, Widowski, TM, Guerin, MT, Kiarie, EG and Torrey, S 2019. The effect of alternative feeding strategies for broiler breeder pullets: 1. Welfare and performance during rearing. Poultry Science 98, 3377–3390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrazola, A, Mosco, E, Widowski, TM, Guerin, MT, Kiarie, EG and Torrey, S 2020. The effect of alternative feeding strategies during rearing on the behaviour of broiler breeder pullets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 224, 104929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrazola, A and Torrey, S 2019a. Conditioned place avoidance using encapsulated calcium propionate as an appetite suppressant for broiler breeders. PLoS ONE 14, e0206271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrazola, A and Torrey, S 2019b. The development of fault bars in domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) increases with acute stressors and individual propensity: implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare 28, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aviagen 2013a. Parent stock management handbook: Ross. Aviagen Ltd., Huntsville, AL, USA.Google Scholar
Aviagen 2016. Parent stock performance objectives: Ross 308. Aviagen Ltd., Huntsville, AL, USA.Google Scholar
Buckley, LA, Sandilands, V, Hocking, PM, Tolkamp, BJ and D’Eath, RB 2012. The use of conditioned place preference to determine broiler preferences for quantitative or qualitative dietary restriction. British Poultry Science 53, 291–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Council for Animal Care (CCAC) 2009. CCAC Guidelines On: The Care and Use of Farm Animals in Research, Teaching and Testing. Retrieved on 14 October 2019 from https://www.ccac.ca/en/standards/guidelines/types-of-animals.htmlGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Tolkamp, BJ, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, AB 2009. ‘Freedom from hunger’ and preventing obesity: the animal welfare implications of reducing food quantity or quality. Animal Behaviour 77, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, IC, Enting, H, van Voorst, AS and Blokhuis, HJ 2005. Do low-density diets improve broiler breeder welfare during rearing and laying? Poultry Science 84,194–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, IC, van Voorst, AS and Blokhuis, HJ 2003. Parameters for quantification of hunger in broiler breeders. Physiology & Behaviour 78, 773–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De los Mozos, J, García-Ruiz, A, den Hartog, L and Villamide, M 2017. Growth curve and diet density affect eating motivation, behaviour, and body composition of broiler breeders during rearing. Poultry Science 96, 2708–2717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enting, H, Veldman, A, Verstegen, MW and van der Aar, P 2007. The effect of low-density diets on broiler breeder development and nutrient digestibility during the rearing period. Poultry Science 86, 720–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Girard, MTE, Zuidhof, MJ and Bench, CJ 2017a. Feeding, foraging, and feather pecking behaviours in precision-fed and skip-a-day-fed broiler breeder pullets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 188, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A, Baes, C and Bessei, W 2006a. The demand of laying hens for feathers and wood shavings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A, Piepho, H and Bessei, W 2006b. The effect of feather eating on feed passage in laying hens. Poultry Science 85, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocking, PM, Maxwell, MH and Mitchell, MA 1996. Relationships between the degree of food restriction and welfare indices in broiler breeder females. British Poultry Science 37, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jovani, R and Rohwer, S 2017. Fault bars in bird feathers: mechanisms, and ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Biological Reviews 92, 1113–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, SH and Iqbal, J 2016. Recent advances in the role of organic acids in poultry nutrition. Journal of Applied Animal Research 44, 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeegan, DE and Savory, CJ 1999. Feather eating in layer pullets and its possible role in the aetiology of feather pecking damage. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, B, Bessei, W, Vahjen, W, Zentek, J and Harlander-Matauschek, A 2012. Dietary inclusion of feathers affects intestinal microbiota and microbial metabolites in growing Leghorn-type chickens. Poultry Science 91, 1506–1513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrissey, KLH, Brocklehurst, S, Baker, L, Widowski, TM and Sandilands, V 2016. Can non-beak treated hens be kept in commercial furnished cages? Exploring the effects of strain and extra environmental enrichment on behaviour, feather cover, and mortality. Animals 6, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrissey, KLH, Widowski, TM, Leeson, S, Sandilands, V, Arnone, A and Torrey, S 2014a. The effect of dietary alterations during rearing on feather condition in broiler breeder females. Poultry Science 93,1636–1643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrissey, KLH, Widowski, TM, Leeson, S, Sandilands, V, Arnone, A and Torrey, S 2014b. The effect of dietary alterations during rearing on growth, productivity, and behaviour in broiler breeder females. Poultry Science 93, 285–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, BL, Thodberg, K, Malmkvist, J and Steenfeldt, S 2011. Proportion of insoluble fibre in the diet affects behaviour and hunger in broiler breeders growing at similar rates. Animal 5,1247–1258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riber, AB and Hinrichsen, LK 2016. Feather eating and its associations with plumage damage and feathers on the floor in commercial farms of laying hens. Animal 10, 1218–1224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roza, K, Martin, M and Barnes, HJ 2006. Litter impaction of the lower intestinal tract in male broiler breeders. Avian Diseases 50, 460–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandilands, V, Tolkamp, BJ, Savory, CJ and Kyriazakis, I 2006. Behaviour and welfare of broiler breeders fed qualitatively restricted diets during rearing: are there viable alternatives to quantitative restriction? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, CJ 1999. Temporal control of feeding behaviour and its association with gastrointestinal function. Journal of Experimental Zoology 283, 339–347.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savory, CJ, Hocking, PM, Mann, J and Maxwell, M 1996. Is broiler breeder welfare improved by using qualitative rather than quantitative food restriction to limit growth rate? Animal welfare 5, 105–127.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, BJ and D’Eath, RB 2016. Hunger associated with restricted feeding systems. In Nutrition and the welfare of farm animals (ed. Phillips, CJC), pp. 11–27. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, BJ, Sandilands, V and Kyriazakis, I 2005. Effects of qualitative feed restriction during rearing on the performance of broiler breeders during rearing and lay. Poultry Science 84, 1286–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrey, S, Arnone, A, Morrissey, LKH, Widowski, TM, Leeson, S, Sandilands, V and Classen, H 2013. Are qualitatively restrictive diets for broiler breeders palatable? In Proceedings of the 102nd Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting, 22–25 July 2013, San Diego, USA, v. 92 (E-Suppl. 1), p. 28.Google Scholar
van Emous, RA, Kwakkel, R, van Krimpen, M and Hendriks, W 2015. Effects of different dietary protein levels during rearing and different dietary energy levels during lay on behaviour and feather cover in broiler breeder females. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 168, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Krimpen, M and de Jong, IC 2014. Impact of nutrition on welfare aspects of broiler breeder flocks. World’s Poultry Science Journal 70, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuidhof, MJ, Holm, D, Renema, R, Jalal, M and Robinson, F 2015. Effects of broiler breeder management on pullet body weight and carcass uniformity. Poultry Science 94, 1389–1397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Arrazola et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Arrazola et al. supplementary material(File)
File 251.1 KB